Scholar

Just think about how absurd it is the the richest man alive has such low ego/development that he would fake being good at a game. And think about how he views the average citizen to think that he could get away with it. And this guy is the top oligarch of the United States. We truly are entering idiocracy, how is any of this even real. Trump itself is an absurdly surreal phenomena, but it's just getting worse and worse. The lack of integrity and anti-intellectualism in american culture is truly disgusting. You americans are like a plague on the world, and the sad reality is that you are the only real option we have, given that the alternative is authoritarian dictatorships like China. I pray to God that the Indians rise in power and establish themselves as a world dominance with a culture that is more sophisticated than whatever surface level, vain and childish culture the US has come up with over the past few decades. The sad thing is that you guys are dragging us all down with you, by being the cultural center of the western world.

Then what you say meaningless. Every single human right has been achieved by extremism, according to this standard. Every single moral step forward in the history of mankind was extreme, relative to what was normative.

The problem is that, ethics being a matter of persective undermines your entire point. Of course to the racist, the abolitionist will be annoying and "psychologicall unwell", and radical and unhealthy. But why would the abolitionist care about this? He thinks slavery is immoral, so of course he will be willing to kill you. What you are missing is that moral relativism the way you employ does nothing but serve the status quo. You basically demand of individuals to maintain the status quo, to not get on your nerves, because morality is relative and therefore everyone should be left to do what they please. But this only works because you are not the one who is victimized. It's a profoundly ignorant state of consciousness you reside in. You are utterly blind to your own evil. In the end you just find it extreme because it doesn't fit your self-serving value system. Malcom X was also extreme, and what you are doing by appealling to some utilitarian Philosopher, is basically appealling to Malcom X to dismiss the abolitionist (or equal rights) movement, because he is radical and extreme. You can disagree with the vegans, but in the end the light of consciousness will win over the darkness. Your archaic worldview will perish, and everyone will see how blatantly biggotted and selfish you were. And I don't even mean this in a profoundly condemnatory way, it simply is what it is. It's like people who argued abolishing slavery will come with all the former slaves dying of starvation and disease because they will no longer have employment. This exactly transpired, but that does not change the fact that the racist slave-owners simply appealled to that fact, not because they cared about slaves, but because they would appeal to anything that would make the other side seem unreasonable. Veganism is like human rights and the abolition of slavery. But you are missing a far deeper point, in that the moral relativism you subscribe to give every radical vegan a perfect validation of their actions. They could engage in terrorism and be perfectly morally justified, because morality is simply a matter of perspective.

Because veganism is not a diet, it's an ethical stance. Diet is simply one part of remaining consistent in regards to human rights and basic ethical foundations that we as a society subscribe to. What you say is as profoundly ignorant as maintaining a stance that because ethics is subjective, therefore whether or not you want to be racist is a matter of opinion and anyone who tries to speak against human rights violations is a radical because these stage orange oafs need to accept that not everyone is going to agree on what basic human rights even are. The truth is, you are not developed enough ethically speaking to even be capable of understanding the vegan position. Moral consideration for me but not for thee.

Sure, shaming is not the best tactic, but every shaming vegan is better than a non-shaming non-vegan. Both in regards to their development as humans, as well as their basic moral character.

The best argument for guns is that it gives individuals who are physically disadvantaged a power equalizer. In the end, if you ban guns, you take away from vulnerable individuals the only means they might have to defend themselves from physically dominating individuals. An example might be a woman who has a crazy ex boyfriend who stalks her. In that case, not only can the gun provide a feeling of basic security, but it might also be used in the case violence is escalated.

Yes, there are a few limitation to Mirror Life, in that they would have difficulty competing in an environment in which most molecules or protein structures would have to be reorganized to fit their handedness. The concept itself is interesting however, given advancements in evolutionary technologies such as machine learning, we might reach a critical point at which technology itself might become far more accessible than it currently is. The scary thing about this is that it is no longer engineering that leads to technological advancement, but evolution itself. Evolution is capable of generating complexity, rather than mere complicatedness, such as engineering is reducable to. Complexity arrived through evolution can solve for problems beyond the feasibility of linear thinking. Solutions might not be comprehendible, given that the complexity itself is the solution/function, in an irreducible way.

There are very few human beings self-reflective enough to recognize themselves in the perpetrators of their victimization. The reality is that Israeli's do not feel secure, and the history is too complex to be able to boil it down to a simple moralistic tale of oppressor and oppressed. Such narratives have achieved nothing in all the decades of conflict. There needs to be greater care when you condemn such individuals. Hypocrisy is part of the human condition. When we speak of ethics, it should be recognized that the entire moral conversation in society is profoundly self-centered and biased. The fact that virtually no attention is paid, by you, or anyone else here, on the fact that we torture, rape and slaughter billions of individuals every year, in every nation on this planet, for far more trivial reasons than national security, should tell you everything you need to know about human decency. Notice that ss soon as your mind might get an inkling of the fact that you are no different from the Israeli, in your degree of self-serving evil, ignorance and selfishness, you will seek to distinguish yourself from them. You will seek to find an excuse for why in fact, the Israeli is less evolved than you, that he is more childlike, self-absorbed and blind than you are. You should realize that in that moment, you commit the same sin Netanyahu commits when he oppresses the Palestinian people. Not only are you selfish and evil, you are just as blind as he is to this reality. The only solution to this can be deep compassion, for those you consider most evil and depraved. When you ask "Why does Israel act so indecently?", you should ask yourself, why do you act so indecently? Why do you turn a blind eye to what is happening? Why do you not speak up about it? Why do you contribute to it? Everything that there is to understand about the evil of the Nazi, the evil of the Israeli, the evil of the Palestinians, will be provided if you ask yourself these questions enough. Truly realize, why it is impossible to expect from you, Leo Gura, basic human decency.

This is precisely true. That which is repressed must be denied in oneself. And by denying it, one gives that part of oneself power to influence on from the shadows. It's a profoundly simple psychological reality, yet it's impact is utterly neglected by contemporary society. The more you condemn others for immorality, the more incapable you will be of recognizing your own immorality, because the cost of recognition become higher. The one who is without sin shall cast the first stone. Recognizing our imperfections is the first step to freeing ourselves from it's control. This is why the contemporary cultural manifestation of stage green can be so toxic, because of how profoundly blind to it's own evil it can be when it acts from a position of judgment and peer influence. The greatest insight should be that oneself is deeply flawed. The reason why you have to feel true compassion even towards your enemy, towards those you consider evil, is because it will be the first step to understanding them and their imperfection. And if you understand their imperfection, and recognize it as such, you will be able to recognize it in yourself in equal, sometimes even greater, measure.

This is a very interesting idea. It basically boils down to all life on earth being biased towards a certain asymmetrical molecular structure given that life began biased towards one asymmetry over another. Life does not ever counter the counter-symmetry to this structure, because all life is based on DNA which is carries in it that structural bias. If you create a precisely mirrored version of DNA and a life form, like a bacteria (on a molecular level), it would be impossible for any organism on this planet to detect and counter-measure against that type of life. No immune system could even detect, let alone fight such biological forms. The reason why this is such an essential idea is that it demonstrated an asymmetry of power as a result of unconscious evolutionary processed. Meaning, because of how exceptionally unlikely it is for a life form to just emerge from the ground up (from the creation of a new form of DNA that would happen to be a mirror version of ours), life basically never encountered these threats at all, during the entire history of evolution. This means there are absolutely no adaptations to such threats. Which means that given such a threat is introduced, it would virtually an infinite power glitch in regards to evolution in relation to it's competitors. It's basically a blatant security vulnerability that is present in virtually all life on earth. The reason why it is an symmetry of power is because, it might be far easier to create such mirror life than to find defenses against it. It might become fairly trivial to create such life forms in the near future, especially given advancements in AI, but it might not be even remotely as trivial to find ways of counteracting the negative effects of being exposed to such life. This is basically an inevitability of technological evolution. The inevitablity is that, as civilization grows more powerful, each mistake it will make will also become more devastating. With nuclear weapons this is clear, but in relation to what awaits is in the future, such weaponry might be viewed as trivial. As technology evolves, each individual actor within civilization will also be given more power and therefore more responsibility. At some point this power might become so great that even a single individual within civilization could cause a world ending event, simply because it might not be possible to contain something like the distribution of AI systems which could make it easy for individuals to create technologies that are life ending. There is no reason for why life couldn't just be wiped out and be forced to start from scratch. Life is iterative, so it will just begin anew, and maybe the next intelligent life form will go down a pathway that does not lead to extinction. Maybe that takes a million planets that all develop intelligent life, and out of 1 of all of them, intelligent life gets to persist. If you think this is outragous, then you simply have to consider what the process of evolution is in the first place. The vast majority of species that existed went extinct. Evolution in that way does not care about wastefulness, or your particular feelings about the world. To evolution, the entire universe, or multiverse, is it's playground.

This will not work fundamentally, because like you describe yourself the incentives do not align. None of these individuals had a positive impact, because the system from which they operate does not appeal to reasonable and developed individuals, and it actively decivilizes individuals. You are in this way as naive as you accuse the individuals in the video of being. If you are going to play this game (making it acceptable to engage in), it is not you, the reasonable and developed individuals, who are going to be able to exploit this dynamic to "win the game", but rather it will be the most common denominator of unconscious and primitive behavior. What is and isn't on the line is completely unknowable. You think the world is on the line, but in the end none of what you say is actually provably a problem. That a few species die here and there? Who cares? Planetary boundaries? So what, we can adapt. AI superintelligence? There is literally no evidence that this will be a thing in the next century. Yet you seem to not even mention actual systemic issues that make it virtually impossible to resolve all the problems mentioned above, namely the epistemic breakdown that has lead to the very delusional views that you hold as well. You don't notice that problem because it does not sound as fancy, but it is far more relevant because it renders solutions to all of the problems above virtually meaningless, given they cannot be intregrated into reality.

I don't think there are relevant alternatives to paypal given that most alternatives are not integrated into the respective sites that require such payment methods.

The solution is we need to not have a monopoly on every single online media aspect, including online banking. It's simply not good. We need to have various versions of twitter, paypal, youtube and so forth.

There is an irony in which, sometimes, if you are too weak and nice to an individual, you harm them by inviting their instincts to exploit your weakness. On a political scale we can see this with Russia and the West. Russia assume the West grew so weak and pacifist that they would not be willing to fight wars any longer. With a less developed individual, you get the same. If you show them weakness, civility and so forth, it is an opportunity for them to establish their dominance, as you said. There is a reason why the mafia, and many drug cartel leaders, are so religious. Stage blue is basically the solution to the power hungry egoism that they are engaging in, and that brings so many problems for them. From a spiral dynamics perspective, if you lack a solid stage blue foundation in your society, then how exactly is stage red supposed to evolve up the spiral? Stage red only respects power. So, a more developed society can struggle more with adopting individuals with certain development. Stage green has significant limitations in this, the solution to which is stage yellow.

Do you think sometimes feelings of guilt could help someone? Can you see how this statement, if applied the way you did, could be applied to things you wouldn't deem acceptable?